The Violence Policy Center report, "Shot
Full of Holes, Deconstructing John Ashcroft's Second Amendment", concludes with
the following sentence, "Attorney General Ashcroft's efforts to change the Department
[of Justice]'s position on the Second Amendment will have dangerous real-world
implications that will be measured in increased death and injury from firearms." It
would be hard to find a more blatant case of "deconstructing" reality, of
ignoring the facts in favor of wishful thinking. If the Violence Policy Center is
interested in "real-world implications", they have to look no further than
across the Atlantic to Britain, where the fondest whims of the gun banners have actually
been implemented and tested. By every rational measure those gun control laws, including a
virtually total ban on handguns, have failed miserably.

The Centre for Defence Studies, King's College, London, recently issued a study
titled Illegal Firearms in the UK, examining the effect of gun control measures in
the United Kingdom. In the years since the ban was enacted, the criminal use of
firearms has increased by 40%. The study found that in "the 20 police
areas with the fewest legally-held firearms, half had an above average level of gun crime.
Of the 20 police areas with the highest level of legally-held guns, only two had armed
crime above the average." Yet U.K. gun banners insist that their "cure" is
working: "the last thing we should do is relax our gun laws." Like the doctor
who proudly trumpets his cure for a deadly disease — and tells you not to be
concerned that more patients died with the cure than without it. Of course
the pro gun control American media simply isn't interested, and hopes that you'll never
find out about the deadly failure of gun control. Search the propaganda mills that
insultingly call themselves the American free press for any mention of this study. Our
media wants to keep you ignorant of how dangerous their scheme for total civilian
disarmament really is to your safety.

Since 1997 the United Kingdom has been serving as a real-world laboratory for the
schemes of gun controllers. Following a shooting at the Dunblane Primary School in March
1996 in which 16 children and a teacher were killed, the British Parliament passed the
Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997. The certification process for the holders of a
"Firearm Certificate" under the Firearms Act 1968, the principal Act governing
the possession of firearms by private individuals was also tightened. In March, 2000, the Home
Affairs Committee of the British Parliament issued a report titled Controls
Over Firearms, explaining the current firearms licensing structure in the U.K. Under
the Firearms Act 1968, many handguns and automatic weapons fell under "Section 5
controls", which were weapons prohibited for private possession unless
held under the express authority of the Secretary of State. "Section 1 controls"
covered most other firearm in general use, such as rifles and high-powered air weapons,
and certain types of multi-shot shotguns. "Section 2 controls" governed specific
types of shotguns (long-barreled shotguns with no magazine or a non-detachable magazine
capable of holding no more than two cartridges). The Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997,
following Dunblane, subjected virtually all handguns to "Section 5 controls"
— that is, their possession and use is flatly prohibited except by express
authority of the Secretary of State. What are considered less dangerous firearms
— shotguns and low-powered air weapons — are subject to lesser controls,
governed by the Firearm Certificate process.

Granting of a Firearm Certificate requires that the issuing authority determine
that the applicant: (a) is fit to be entrusted with a firearm, and is not a person
prohibited from possessing a section 1 firearm; (b) has good reason for possessing,
purchasing, or acquiring the specific firearm and ammunition for which the application is
made; and (c) can be permitted to have the firearm or ammunition in his possession without
danger to the public safety or to the peace. The Firearm Certificate can be revoked if the
issuing authority has reason to believe either: (a) that the certificate holder
"is of intemperate habits or unsound mind or otherwise unfitted to be entrusted with
a firearm"; or (b) that the certificate holder can no longer be permitted to hold the
firearms or ammunition to which the certificate relates without danger to public safety or
the peace; or (c) that the certificate holder is prohibited from possessing a firearm; or
(d) that the certificate holder no longer has good reason to possess the firearm or
ammunition.

The system, obviously, is highly subjective. And it has been a spectacular — and
dangerous — failure. Here are some of the submissions to the Home Affairs Committee
for their Controls Over Firearms report:

"It is clear that the bans introduced in the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 in
respect of handguns have not worked…. Clearly, these handguns could
not be lawfully possessed and therefore must have been illegally imported into the country
or already be in the unlawful possession of someone. These facts tend to support those
shooting organisations who were opposing the ban of handguns at the time the above Act was
proposed in that handguns in the lawful possession of those involved in target shooting
were rarely used in criminal activity." — Police Superintendents' Association,
West Yorkshire Branch.

"The ban on handguns introduced in 1997 has undoubtedly removed a source of
legitimately held firearms but it is not possible to state whether this reduced the number
of weapons available illegally." — Chief Superintendent, Chairman, Operational
Policing Advisory Committee.

"Small and large calibre handguns may have been taken out of circulation but the
numbers of pistols/revolvers in circulation have not dropped in proportion." —
Police Superintendents' Association, Cleveland Branch.

"The Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 has been very successful in significantly
reducing legally held handguns from circulation but it has no effect on those
illegally held." — Police Superintendents' Association, Humberside
Branch

"Whilst the change in the law on handguns has reduced the number, it does not
appear to have been difficult for criminals to get hold of them whenever they want."
— Police Superintendents' Association, Hampshire Branch.

Imagine that! Law abiding Britons are disarmed, but criminals have no trouble getting
weapons "whenever they want". Are we supposed to be surprised by that? Thomas
Jefferson would not have been surprised:

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither
inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Can it be supposed that those who have the
courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity...will respect the less important and
arbitrary ones... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the
assailants, they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man
may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." —
Jefferson, quoting Enlightenment philosopher Cesare Beccaria, "On Crimes and
Punishment", 1764.

"The Council notes that the existing system of control is made up of components
often introduced piecemeal in an attempt to assuage public feelings rather than
based on an identified need. It has not been subject to rigorous examination to determine
its effectiveness and efficiency. Although much of this system has been justified on
grounds of public safety, it has failed to address the central issue that public safety is
put at risk by illegal arms and not by those of law-abiding sportspersons." —
the British Shooting Sports Council.

"Legally held guns are very rarely used in criminal activities." — the
National Farmers' Union.

And recall the International Crime Victims Survey, released by the Dutch
Ministry of Justice in February, 2001 (discussed in the May 20 issue of this
newsletter), that found the three countries with the most draconian handgun bans recently
enacted — the United Kingdom, Australia, and Canada — to be among the top five
countries in the world with the most frequent incidents of criminal violence (the U.S.
ranked ninth). And while violent crime showed a declining trend in America, the
trend was found to be increasing in the U.K. and Australia.

Yet the British Gun Control Network, like its American counterparts, is not
interested: "All our activities and objectives are predicated on the belief that the
interests of public safety demand a reduction in the availability and attractiveness of
firearms of all kinds." Belief is fine, but should belief overcome facts? Their
response to the Centre for Defence Studies report: "The distinction between legal and
illegal weapons is not clear cut. It should not be forgotten that virtually all guns start
out as legal weapons, and that victims are unable to discriminate between a bullet fired
from a legal or an illegal gun. Policy must be based on the strict control of availability
of all weapons."

Arguments are made by gun control groups that there hasn't been any real increase in
violent crime in the United Kingdom following the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997, because
statisticians have changed the way that criminal events are reported and recorded. It is
true that the methodology has changed, but the Minister of State of the Home Office
addressed that specific issue in a submission to the Parliament during its examination of
the 1997 Act: "In order to be able to make some comparisons on recorded crime before
and after the change in counting rules, a linking exercise was undertaken. This showed
that there was an overall increase of 14 per cent in recorded crime figures due to the
change in counting rules." Recall that the Centre for Defence Studies found that the
criminal use of firearms has increased by 40%, only 14 percentage points of which are
attributable to changes in the reporting methodology.

An organization called Justice for Shooters contends that the United Kingdom, as
a consequence of its regulation of firearms, is presently in violation of the European
Convention of Human Rights because "…the 1997 Firearms Amendment Acts only
succeeded in depriving a significant minority of innocent people of their Human Rights,
sport, property and livelihoods." And as the reports from the Centre for Defence
Studies and the Home Affairs Committee show, honest people have also been rendered
defenseless against criminal depredations. There is no doubt that gun control is a
violation of human rights — the age-old human right of self defense.
"…a man's house is his Castle, and a person's own house is his ultimate refuge;
for where shall a man be safe, if it be not in his house. And in this sense it truly said,
and the laws permit the taking up of arms against armed persons." — Sir Edward
Coke, "Institutes of the Laws Of England", 1628. "Self defense is
justly called the primary law of nature, so it is not, neither can it be in fact, taken
away by the laws of society." — Sir William Blackstone, "Commentaries on
the Laws of England", 1765.

Increasingly around the world, that "primary law of nature" — the
inherent human right to defend yourself, your family, and your home against criminal
attack — is being subverted by the "laws of society". We in this country
argue the finer points of Constitutional interpretation to decide whether individuals have
the right to keep and bear arms, but in so doing we ignore the larger issue — that
when honest people are disarmed, criminals find it easier to ply their trade. This is
undeniable. That criminals will always be able to obtain weapons is also not arguable.
Simply passing laws will not prevent that, as the billion-dollar annual trade in illegal
drugs makes painfully clear. But that criminals will remain armed while honest people are
disarmed, while true, is almost beside the point. The fact remains that the most effective
means for people to defend themselves against criminal attack (armed or unarmed) are
firearms, and those who disarm honest and law-abiding people have the suffering of tens of
thousands of needless victims on their hands.